- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "ji'o'e"
Comment #1:
ma selmaho
|
gleki (Fri Jun 26 17:10:35 2015)
|
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: ma selmaho
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 04:13:14 2015)
|
gleki wrote: >
mi na birti djuno .i ma'oi je ku ja ma'oi joi vau xu
|
-
Comment #5:
Re: ma selmaho
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 07:06:48 2015)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > mi na birti djuno .i ma'oi je ku ja ma'oi joi vau xu
(The issue is that the definition that I originally and currently have provided allows for both logical and non-logical connectives to be referenced by this word. But they belong to different selma'o. It seems better to me to allow for the word to reference any member of the super-selma'o CONNECTIVE than for it to be restricted to one selma'o. But this might be bad for the grammar or otherwise undesirable. If it is deemed so, I propose that this word be assigned to selma'o JE, referencing only logical connectives, and that a new word joi'o'e be created in selma'o JOI such that it references only non-logical connectives. On the other hand, if ji can be answered with joi, perhaps we only need the former.
(Side note: I have two cases where I want to establish super-selma'o. The first is this case of connectives. The second is the case of letterals and PA digits, which should be able to act in concert so as to form strings together, but which have somewhat different grammars.)
Another issue is that this word does not distinguish between contexts in a sentence. According to the current CLL, I should maybe have invented dofferer words for .e, je, etc. However, many Lojbanists presently agree that the system is too complicated and inelegant, having proposed several versions of essentially the same solution, which simplifies all of these into one set of words. In this newer case, this word works fine. Even in the old CLL case, it could be argued that this word works fine (if it references any allowed member of super-selma'o CONNECTIVE) because the grammatical context of its usage (including nearby terminators) dictate from which selma'o permitted referents can be drawn.)
|
-
|
|
|
Comment #3:
.i ji'o'e
|
gleki (Sat Jun 27 05:46:29 2015)
|
how is .iji'o'e different from .i?
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: .i ji'o'e
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 06:54:16 2015)
|
gleki wrote: > how is .iji'o'e different from .i?
I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They must be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived logically from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju implies that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply anything about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts. Thus .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the statements, even if it does not say what it is.
|
-
Comment #6:
Re: .i ji'o'e
|
gleki (Sat Jun 27 07:34:37 2015)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > how is .iji'o'e different from .i? > > I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about > their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They must
> be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual > relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived logically > from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju implies > that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply anything > about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts. Thus > .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the statements,
> even if it does not say what it is.
I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across iji'o'e sentences?
|
-
Comment #7:
Re: .i ji'o'e
|
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 07:36:49 2015)
|
gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > how is .iji'o'e different from .i? > > > > I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about > > their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They must > > > be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual > > relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived > logically > > from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju implies > > that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply > anything > > about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts. > Thus > > .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the statements, > > > even if it does not say what it is. > > I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across > iji'o'e sentences?
If they are preserved over .ije, then yes. This word is meant to function exactly as (at least) je does, but without the semantics of je (being elliptical/referencing any connective instead of merely "and").
|
-
Comment #8:
Re: .i ji'o'e
|
gleki (Sat Jun 27 07:47:04 2015)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > how is .iji'o'e different from .i? > > > > > > I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about > > > their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They > must > > > > > be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual > > > relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived > > logically > > > from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju > implies > > > that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply > > anything > > > about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts.
> > Thus > > > .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the > statements, > > > > > even if it does not say what it is. > > > > I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across > > iji'o'e sentences? > > If they are preserved over .ije, then yes. This word is meant to function > exactly as (at least) je does, but without the semantics of je (being
> elliptical/referencing any connective instead of merely "and").
Another option could be to extend the grammar of STAG BO_CLAUSE so that "mi do'e bo klama" becomes gendra.
Alta grammar now supports it instead of yours "mi ji'o'e do'e bo klama" since joik_ek can now be elided.
The expansion is just mi klama i do'e bo do klama
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|